Confounding as it is, being that the conservative movement is purportedly all about spending wisely and individual choice, the right wing think tanks tend not to favor smart growth.

It’s always fascinating to consider their arguments. The complaint put forward in a recent Heritage Foundation white paper is a classic example: Smart growth is bad, the writers say, because it relies on “big government interference.”

Without zoning laws, suburban residential subdivisions would not be protected from intrusion by smelly factories, shadow-casting skyscrapers, and loud night clubs. If the government tried to take away those zoning rules protecting suburban home values, there would be a public revolt.

The same zoning tools that are used by smart growth advocates to focus dense development around transit are used by suburban developers to build subdivisions of peaceful single-family homes.

You can’t build one of those suburban subdivisions — or even one of those fancy new mixed-use “town centers” in the center of nowhere — unless the government blesses, builds, and maintains the roads, schools, sewers, and utilities to serve it.

Even if a private developer fronts money to pay for the infrastructure in and around the development, it’s impossible to connect any of it to the larger grid without government help. And after all that new infrastructure supporting scattered development is built, guess who has to maintain it? That’s right: big government. And who pays for all of that? That’s right: “We the People” do.

So both sprawl and smart growth require government intervention, but only one outcome saves taxpayers money, improves public health and reduces environmental impact.

Elsewhere on the Network today: CAHSR Blog says gas consumption is on the decline in the Golden State. The Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation reports that the World Health Organization has zeroed in on car crashes as a leading global public health threat. And Urban Indy posits that great streets will encourage “jaywalking.”

Sprawl dependent on big government? I’ve seen some sprawl proponents of the Heritage/Cato/Reason variety admit as much, but they support it anyway, since the end result is a built environment more in tune with their worldview.

The way they see it, cities inherently cause government dependency, collectivism, socialism, gun control, unionization, etc. and are at odds with the Jeffersonian ideal of the yeoman farmer living on his own land, minding his own affairs, and only interacting with his neighbors when absolutely necessary. Suburban sprawl to them has the advantages of urban life (even though it really doesn’t) without the ‘negative’ aspects of it. They don’t see car dependency as a problem. Cars to them represent freedom. The fact that their car is able to move thanks to government roads is not seen as an issue.

They have a self-induced blind spot when it comes to roads, highways, airports, etc. These are whitelisted as “acceptable” public investments. Trains, buses, bike paths, bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, etc. are “boondoggles” and “wastes of money”. Go figure. A lot of it is just rationalization of an mid-20th century notion of American life into an ideal.So some of them may have a moral conundrum (much as they might for government built and operated highways), but not much of one, since from a consequentialist viewpoint the end result (low-density development that allows them to pursue the fanciful notion that they’re rugged individualists and self-made “success stories” who don’t need government, society, or public investment) outweighs the means to achieve this (“big government”).

Steve

Let’s not forget mortgage rates kept low by government guarantees. If most normal folks couldn’t get secure, low-rate mortgages then most people would live in multi-family buildings funded by large developers.

Bolwerk

Making it legal to build large developments of attached would be scaling back a government regulation. But, that’s not really what they care about. In their fevered minds, all that isn’t prohibited becomes mandatory. Something being permissible but optional is as much an enemy to their authoritarian idea of “freedom” as something they disagree with being mandatory.

http://twitter.com/JaredRodriguez Jared Rodriguez

Harold, right on. Please see the works of Charles Marohn. He writes very eloquently about the suburban fiscal ponzi scheme, as he has come to call the fiscal situation that most sprawl municipalities find themselves in.

Joe R.

The mortgage interest deduction is the biggest way the government subsidizes sprawl. Either eliminate it, or allow people to deduct rents also. Government tax policy shouldn’t favor single family homes over denser living arrangements. If anything, the reverse should be true.

Erik Griswold

Notice that Canada does not have such a deduction. Now notice what their cities look like and especially the variety of housing styles on offer.

Abaquerolima

The right wingers you speak of sound like RINOS. As a Libertarian (a green oriented one), I do believe in smart growth. If someone wants to live in the far far flung suburbs they will have to foot the full transpirtation cost i.e. pay the market value for toll roads. Nothing subsidized.

Abaquerolima

When the government steps out of its Constitutional boundaries, things go to shit.

Abaquerolima

Yeah the right you describing sound a lot like RINOS. The Jeffersonian ideal never stated that citizens should avoid each other as much as possible. Either way, as a green Libertarian I do believe that individuals living in far flung suburbs i.e. not within a city’s boundaries should pay the full market value gor water, electricity, roadways, etc. Now that’s freedom.

Pragmatic

Be still my beating heart. Please don’t ask me to subsidize your mass transit and extra police officers for crime control. Oh, and when your schools don’t turn out to be all that you have dreamed of, I will be paying for extra services for the needy kids that smart growth policies like subsidized housing support.

Pragmatic

A better deduction would be for maintenance of homes to encourage people to keep up city housing.

Pragmatic

You’re being silly and rambling. The choice is not smart growth or no trains, busses, bike paths, etc. People can still have bike paths and green space without smart growth. Houses with fair size lots are good for families. The children of those families will someday help pay the social security benefits of those living now. Raising children in an apartment would not be fun. Plus, those families who like to have a hosue with a yard usually spend a large amount of money in the economy and often their children do better in schools than those in urban centers.

Pragmatic

It is a fallacy that smart growth saves money. There are tremendous investments in infrastructure needed to support smart growth that are spread among all taxpayers, many of whom would not support smart growth if they understood it. Plus, in regular developments, the developer often foots some of the upfront costs. In smart growth centers, the city planners shift a bunch of costs to the general taxpayer. This bites big time! As far as connecting surburban growth to the city, suburban dwellers pay a lot of taxes and support businesses that pay taxes as well. Plus, the suburban kids overall often are less of a drain on the public school system. Smart growth planners have yet to solve the problem of troubled inner city schools and until they do, famlies will flee inner cities in droves.

Follow Streetsblog

Transportation for America

America's transportation system is half a century behind--causing unnecessary pollution, expense, and congestion. We need our leaders to invest in public transportation, high-speed passenger rail, streets safe for biking and walking, maintaining our roads and transit systems, and green innovation.